Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-02-11

law were dealing With cOnultiOnS as tlty
knew them to exist In theory legislators
inform Ihrm,elv,s carefully and labor
"u>ly ui the effect of 'he laws upon which
they vote. In practice they do not. Laws
are often passed by their titles alone. They
are very rarely referred To in publications
olh"Ial or otherwise, prior To their pas
sage, except by their titles. Knowing this
tact ami accepting it, and " ilh the design
81 making the best of il, our constitution
mnkcrS gave their maniatc intending to
ohvlate as far as possible the evils result
ing from lniS lax way of doing business
II legislators are too busy or too ncrii
gent Ia have read in full or 10 read laws
unoH MEich thcv are To vote, how vain IL
r\i.rCt Il,in la read laws which the laws
tnrN are Ia vote are to effect, ". .th the sole
purpose OF determining tnercirom whcth-
er it Is worth while To read the laws upon
y hlrh ;h"v re to vote. Congress had no
such ah>uriiy in mind, but il intended
t:iat the titles To laws should be in them
>''lvc, an index To their purpose. SO that
oh hearing them read or on reading them
the attention OF members and of citizens
al well, would he excited, and their ener'
"Ic~ Il mulatrd to an examination of the
proposed laws. Ii seems to me that it is
palirrnr with the act of congress to say
that III oljrrt of IA particular law is To
amend Il section of the code, and that tie
title IS sufficient if it express that much.
1t would be equally accurate to say the
Object of all penal laws is to secure the
peace and good order of society, and that
laws dcnouncing robbery, burglary or lar
ccny would have their object adequately
expressed hy the title An act to secure
the peace and good order of society" The
latter title goes as far beyond as the for
mer stops short of expressing the true OBJ
jcct. The object of an amendatory act is
not To amend. Such construction is too
narrow. 1t sticks in the bark. Legisla-
lures do not amend simply with the OBJ
ject of amending the object in every case
Is Ia Introduce some new, subtantive rule
of action hy the new law, or to abrOgate
some such rule in the old law. 1t is attach
e.! Ia the old law because its provisions
are supposed to he gcrmane to that law.
Ii might he enacted without reference to
II. in which case its title would be requir-
cd to give intimation of the new rule
What magic is there in the name amend.
ment which eXempts law To which it is
tachcd from the salutary provisions appli-
cable to every other law? Fortunately we
are not without authority to guide us on
the precise point under consideration. 1t
has been held in New York several times
that reference in the title of law to 4
particular section of the law to be amend
ed, is not sufficient compliance with the
constitution. The title itself must give in
formation and not simply reference to
sources of information. People rs Hills {;
81 New York. 449. People rs Briggs; SO
New York, 553 Tingue rs Village of Pt
Chester and others; 4 N. +. Reporter,
$3.50. The last case was decided January
10, 1856.
The same thin. in effect has been held
IN Minnesota. The title of an amendatory
act not indicating its object further than
Was done 10y the incorporation therein of
the title of the act amended, il was held
that provisions in the amendatery act not
fairly within the object described by the
title Of the original act, were invalid (Peo-
pie rs. Godway; 2S N. w. Reporter, 1917
The logic of this case is clearly that Il
reference to the title of the old law is sufii-
clent only when that title is broad enough
to cover the things provided for by the
new law, Il forti0r, if the old law have
no title indicating its contents, reference
To il would be entirely Insufficient.
The same court in another case, cites
the New York cases, but guards against
their adoption to the full extent. because
not necessary for the decision of the case
then before il. (Slate u.s. Smith; % n. w.
Reporter, 24D,
The decisions in Indiana are much TO
the same effect rs those in Minnesota
(StItc ~ Bowers; II Indiana, 1850
In" Michigan decisions are 10 the same
elect. In Ease IN that state IN amenda-
tory act WAS sustained, the title of which
referred To particular sections of Il certain
act. the title oi which was included in the
ilti" ot the amcndatory act, and !, section
OF tie old act not described in the title Of
the new act, Was held properly amended
The case, which Is not very clear evident
iy proceeded on the ground that the refer
cnce To the tile of the old act was in itself
sufficient indication of the things which
the amendment might accomplish. The
tOl owing expression is in point on the
matter here involved: The practice Of
amending Ivy reference 10 sections instead
of by reference TO the subject or TO the en-
tire statute, is one which creates II great
deal of mischief and in no way carries out
the real design OF the constitution, and is
of no practical value since in most cases,
in indicating what changes are to be
made Is what precise object is in view"
Cemstock Judge of Superior Court; 80
Michigan, 1850.
California appears To maintain the same
doctrine. The following is he latest de-
cision IN full of the supreme court of that
state: ave are of opinion that the act of
the legislature entitled An act to amend,
sections 1000. 4,003, 4,004, 4,O06, 4,022,
4,023, 4,024, 4,025, 4,026, 4,O2S, 4,O29, 4O46,
4,0S1, 4,l33, 4,l04, 400, Ais, 4,ll6, 4,1l9,
4l6j, 4,l92, 1904. 4,22l, 4,258, ABA, 4,32S.
4,329, 4,344, and add TO add two sections to
he known us sections 4,2s2 and 4,34S. and
repeal sections 1905, 4,1C5, 4,106, 4,11O,
l,lJl. A. 134, 4,304, and to establish sys-
fem Of county government, approved April
~, 1850, Is in conflict with the constitu
ton of the state and void" (Leonard rs.
January; So California, b. AS there is
nothing in the opinion To lead to the CON
elus!on that the different things proposed
were incongruous, the only objection
which is indicated is the obscurity of the
title of the act. Such appears from the
brief to have been :he objection urged by
counsel.
1t appears on the contrary, to have been
held in Georgia, that the title of the act
is sufficient if it refers to the section of
the statute amended. (Wheeler u.s. State
2;i Georgia, 81; also in Arkansas. (Noonan
Is. Curry; 81 Arkansas, 4f0). 1t appears
also that The title of repeating statute is
sufficient in Louisiana if it designates the
section repealed, (Smith rs. Garrett; 20
Louisiana Ann, $50. The last cases are
taken from digest. How accurately the
points decided are digested | have no
means of knowing. An Alabama case
found in the same work does not, how.
ever, bear high testimony to its accuracy
Concerning the Louisiana case, if it he cor
rectly reported, distinction is to be drawn
between arepealing act and an amendatory
act. y reference in the title of the former
10 the section repealed manifesily gives
rcte! cnce to Il source of Information lead.
Ing To Il perfect knowledge of all lha, is
proposed t. bc done. Scattered through
out the report and text books are many
CASES holding that the incorporation i'll
the title of the amendatOry or rePca ling
act Of the title or the act 10 be amended
or repealed, is sufficient compliance
with the constitutional requirement. This
Is undoubtedly true, and il Is true because
the Suhipct of ON amend aforv act = rn